header-logo header-logo

06 March 2024
Issue: 8062 / Categories: Legal News , Litigation funding
printer mail-detail

Litigation funding legislation to reverse PACCAR

The government has confirmed it will introduce a law to restore the position that existed before the Supreme Court’s PACCAR ruling last year on litigation funding

Legislation introduced by Alex Chalk, Lord Chancellor, will make it easier for people to secure litigation funding from third parties when pursuing complex claims against wealthy corporates or other large organisations such as the Post Office. Litigation funding was essential to the subpostmasters’ claim, led by former subpostmaster Alan Bates, which challenged the Post Office’s reliance on its flawed Horizon accounting system.

It will effectively reverse R (PACCAR) v Competition Appeal Tribunal [2023] UKSC 28, in which it was held that litigation funding agreements where payment is based on the amount of damages recovered are damages-based agreements, and therefore mainly unenforceable.

Chalk said: ‘It’s crucial victims can access justice—but it can feel like a David and Goliath battle when they’re facing powerful corporations with deep pockets.’

He said the government is considering options for a wider review of the litigation funding sector and how third-party litigation funding is carried out, including whether more regulation and safeguards are required.

Martyn Day, co-president of the Collective Redress Lawyers Association (CORLA), said: ‘This is a very sensible and welcome development from government.

‘It will ensure that groups of claimants seeking redress resulting from wrongdoing by large corporations and other bodies will be able to focus on bringing claims without those corporations tying up court time and money in trying to unpick the funding agreements that make the claims possible.

‘Collective redress is a vital legal mechanism by which ordinary people can seek justice when wrong is done to them by mighty corporations and other bodies. We will work closely with government on any reform that gives clarity, certainty and fairness to claimants and those who support them in bringing their claims.’

Issue: 8062 / Categories: Legal News , Litigation funding
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll